O'Kelly Isley III
-
Posts
6,640 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by O'Kelly Isley III
-
-
The meeting was pretty informative. I will be interested to see if the criteria laid out for the stadium move by Gilbert last night is adhered to. If it is then it would seem that the risk to the club is minimal.
I'm still concerned about how things will proceed though. At the presentation recently the plan was for 180 houses at the Rock. Last night the planning consultant said that this was likely to be reduced by WDC.
In response to my question last night we were told that the loan to proceed with Phase 1 would be secured on the Dalmoak site itself. However to buy that site from Chivas will require borrowing too. Will Brabco guarantee that themselves or will there be a subsequent charge over BBS? I don't think Brabco have yet purchased the Dalmoak site as they have no assets.
On the plus side, as soon as permission is granted on the Dalmoak site, it will increase in value so maybe the trick will be that the security for the lender will be in that increased value rather than BBS. I would certainly hope so. According to Gilbert last night the purchase price of the Dalmoak site is fixed.
The whole project it would seem hinges on the expected increase in land values and housing demand over the next two years. I have a feeling that should that not happen, the project will be shelved not cancelled. Whilst it does seem there is a plan B for Brabco to recoup should the project not go ahead, that comprises the club staying at the stadium and a small number of houses being built. I can't really see that as a realistic option.
I also note that there was an acknowledgement from the platform of the validity of the 100 C shares (the golden share) last night.
The meeting was certainly helpful in many respects but there are still things that unclear and undefined. One thing that does give me comfort is the fact that Gilbert has direct experience in seeing thro turnkey projects like this proposal, maybe not on this scale, but I would expect considerably in excess of anyone in the Brabco consortium.
I remain concerned however by his assertion that DFC has very little exposure to risk, how can that be when the proposers own 75% of the football club and should their plans be thwarted could presumably press the nuclear button and cash in their chips on the existing site, the name Hosie in the mix or not ? Could the Golden Share survive that in a court of law ?
0 -
Say what you like but some of them down at the club really have got ideas above their station. Only my lifetime loyalty keeps me from telling them to poke it
Dumbarton FC is run on the lines of a private member's golf club rather than a community football club, and that tends to pervade dealings with the public. When people are not comfortable in certain situations they can withdraw into a defensive position which often manifests itself as abruptness.
As regards John Hosie and Alex Wright they were considerably more personable than anyone who has succeeded them, Ian McFarlane included. No-one however was any more loyal, decent, honest than anyone else, it's just that small local football clubs really need to get their supporters and the wider public onside and there are ways of doing just that. We are currently not doing it well enough in my opinion.
0 -
Everyone here going on Wednesday then?
Just heard that the attendance is 749.
0 -
Thats a bit of a turnaround from you but a fair and sensible post. What it shows is that there's pro's and con's to both arguments and we shouldn't dismiss either out of hand until we know all the detail.
As well as many of you, i have yet to be convinced that moving is required. Yet i can see that a 4000 capacity ground with training facilities, if delivered witbout the need to move until completion, and debt free is a fairly attractive proposition. However there are many ifs that need to be answered prior to me accepting this proposal as the right way ahead.
Yes it is indeed but I have been giving this serious thought. Like yourself I still need answers and some guarantees but there is a bigger picture in all of this. Important as the proposal is, it's not all about the new site, we need to consider the limitations and likely future if we remain where we are.
The fact remains that we do sit on a highly saleable parcel of land and if there is to be an opportunity to realise it with something better to move to this may be it. That's not a ringing endorsement of Brabco, more a recognition of the possible need for us all to compromise our views.
0 -
I've been giving this ground move proposal a lot of thought over the last 87 hours, and there are definitely several differing ways to look at the situation.
If we consider the literally here and now, and accept that Brabco will likely do no more than underwrite the most basic investment in the current location then the following might still apply:-
1. We have crap floodlights unfit for purpose.
2. We have no local training facility and are shelling out money on Toryglen.
3. We play in a location in which games are often ruined by howling winds (as opposed to Howlin' Wilf...).
4. We have a bloody great dip along one goal-line.
5. Even if money to uprate were available there will be a poor chance of planning permission, whether the Trust or whoever took on ownership of DFC.
6. Motor access is now heavily restricted thanks to the travelling community.
7. With each passing year the fabric of the poorly spec'd BBS frays further.
8. There are swathes of scabby waste ground and crumbling brickwork surrounding the ground.
9. For many non-football people the BBS may be standing in the way of enhancing a key area of the town and its rivers.
9. Last and by no means least, as and when Ian Murray moves on, it may well be very difficult to attract a manager of comparable rank, especially given the limited facilities.
OK, I'm doing my Devil's Advocate here, and the Brabco proposal still has to stack up, but for example if Phase One were to be concluded without DFC having to vacate the present ground then that starts to become interesting.
All I'm trying to highlight here is that wild as it may sound to some, maybe once we get more detail, hopefully starting next week at The Abbotsford, then we begin to consider everything in the round. I don't want a pig-in-a-poke but neither do I want us all to be wishing five years down the line that we had taken the chance when it was there.
Not everything in the current garden is rosy, and perhaps the proposed garden could be rosier than many of us are prepared to concede. Let's all keep an open mind for now.
0 -
There is one salient fact as I see it and that is the club occupies a prime housing site. When the land occupied by a football club becomes more valuable in monetary terms than the club itself, then that is not a good thing for the long term security of that club. Currently the club has an opportunity to relocate to another much bigger site with a very low cost of land purchase. That site affords the opportunity of incorporating facilities from which the club will receive an income. Phase 1 from what Gilbert said will cost around £4 million and would be financed from the sale of the current site.
He said that were the appropriate sum not to be raised from the sale of the current site, then the project wouldn't go ahead. So where do Denny's Homes come in? Well they would develop and build on half the current site. That is where the return on their 'investment' comes from.
The reason Phase 1 has two training pitches instead of building a second stand at this stage is that the pitches would save and generate money via the team using them for training purposes and their hiring out. And in any case the capacity would be adequate. The first stand would be a two tier building with bars on the first floor and function suites on the ground floor. People book weddings sometimes years in advance. Currently the club doesn't know whether they can take weddings until the football fixture lists come out in June. With a separate function facility this would allow them to take advance bookings. The club is the only function/conference facility in town with a capacity of more than 200
Subsequent phases of development are reliant on securing the income via the other proposed developments on the site.
I was assured that Phase one would be completed before the clearing of the old site, thus no ground sharing.
It isn't the best site I can think of but it is the only alternative one I can think of.
However.....
I find it quite strange that the club has not had an AGM in about three years. I would have thought that these plans would have been discussed with shareholders first. Have the holders of the 100 C shares been notified? I think not.
I would like to think that some way of ring fencing the proceeds of the sale of the current site would be found. I think WDC may already be on the case here.
I wonder if there would be quite the demand for the other facilties (hotel/pub/gym etc) to finance the other phases.
So....yes the salient fact is that the club is sitting on a valuable site. At some stage either the current or subsequent owners will realise that asset. It may be better for that to happen with concrete (sic) plans in place for an alternative site. Or it may not. I simply don't know. I'm trying though to look at the big picture here.
One thing is sure. If the Robert the Bruce Stadium doesn't go ahead. Others may try, try and try again to get the club out of the current site.
A couple of points here; Dumbarton FC is a professional football club, not a wedding or conference venue, and whilst I'm all in favour of 'maximising revenue streams' decisions should be made in the best interests of the footballing aspects of the club and its support and shareholders.
Secondly, if the current hospitality facilities at BBS are considered inadequate why can the possibility of adding a second storey to the existing building not be explored ? For that matter, the whole building could be enhanced at considerably less cost than uprooting as proposed, it's what many people do with their homes. Or is any investment now totally conditional on Brabco getting their pound of flesh ?
Thirdly, as regards training pitches, etc., I suspect the projected income versus reality would be adverse; a club like Stenhousemuir could provide an indication of what to expect. And what of DFC's involvement in refurbishing East End Park for the club's and others' use - has this now been kicked into the long grass in favour of the current ground move proposal ?
0 -
Guys, would be good to get some of the points/concerns made here posted on the "What do you think" section on the Sonstrust website. The owners may not read P&B comments, but they have to be aware, or certainly will be made aware, of comments posted on the Sonstrust site.
You can bet the owners are well aware of what is posted here DK
As for comments and opinions I get the feeling that the situation is now a bit clearer for everyone in the fan base, perversely due to the fact that so many answers were either vague or not forthcoming. Why move house when the one you have is basically still fit for purpose, expecially when you are moving initially to a smaller house with no firm idea of when it can be extended, if ever, and at what cost ? Unless of course the keyholder in the family needs cash in their sky rocket.....
Anyway, as was posted earlier WDC may be in the driving seat now so get prepared for Lesser Millburn.
0 -
The eventual realisation of the full development appears to be contingent on attracting complementary commercial, hospitality, retail or industrial investment in the locale. As someone who works at Lomondgate and has seen various similar plans, which are only now beginning to come into any sort of modest fruition, ie Greggs, Subway, Starbucks and a filling station, dare I suggest that this will be an extremely big ask indeed, even with 'enabling development'.
0 -
From the outside it now looks like Brabco's complicity with the council will result in DFC moving home come what may. WDC now has the bit very firmly between it's teeth in terms of developing the whole area (long overdue by the way) but that leaves DFC at the mercy of some very hopeful projections indeed.
As an indicator, if planning is to be refused for improved floodlighting (on what grounds exactly ?) then the club is shafted in it's present location. Brabco and their agents have sold WDC a pipe-dream and now they will be forced to make it happen. I'm not at all confident.
0 -
Any word on what is wrong with Turner? Needless to say, we could really do with him for the next three games.
Also, it looked like Kirkpatrick was limping at the end; hopefully it's nothing too serious and he was taken off as a precaution.
From the horses mouths yesterday, CT hopes to be ready for selection for the Hearts game whilst Kirky took a deadleg and hopes to be available this Saturday. Kano may still be some weeks off.
0 -
Judging by his background picture you're lucky to get rid of him.
Yep, and the tweets. I wonder if he was at Ibrox the day we took dog's abuse from a rabid section of the home support.
0 -
Let the Yes seethe begin
There will be no seethe from this Yes voter I can assure you, it's the democracy thing you see. And perhaps the good ship UK will indeed limp into port but it's fatally holed below the waterline. The mould is broken, the dam is breached, the mirror is shattered and Gordon Brown's gonads which he injudiciously placed on a chopping board will start to feel gey tender in the coming months.
I'm old enough to remember 1979 and all that, but I'm still young enough to see things come around again. Sure there will be disappointment but no dismay. And remember veikbe, if it is to be your night then there's way of accepting victory as well as defeat - I have to say you've made a poor start.
0 -
The squad is fine as is. Aside from Paul this is effectively the same squad that pushed for a playoff spot last year. In theory we should be fine this time round as well.
Well, that statement certainly reads a bit better since last Friday morning with the loan signing of Kane. Mikey Miller was part of the squad in the last third of last season and he's moved on. As has Jack Ross. And I don't think last term's performance can be any great barometer given the calibre of teams this time, but like you I really do hope we're fine.
0 -
- spot on, my thoughts exactly, if we were to look for anyone else, I'd maybe try and find a real hard man centre mid, but I still think shug can do that if called upon
You are really living up to your name with than one; Murray limped out of last season and isn't likely to hit the ground running in this one. The point about the midfield is not just signing more players but better ones, and if that means showing Murray, McDougall and one of the keepers the door to finance them then I'm absolutely fine with that - they should not have been retained in the first place.
Ask yourself this; if CT gets crocked or suspended who have we got with any dig in midfield ? Teams are passing the ball thro us at will with him in the side FFS ! Let's not allow a very decent Kane-inspired second-half against Livi to blind us to some very real concerns.
0 -
Prunty is a great signing for clyde. I think he's made more appearances for us than he has for any other club. He oozes class on and off the pitch and he should bring on your young players aswell. He's one of the great strikers outwith the premiership. Brilliant finisher in the box and hard worker outside the penalty area. It will be sad to see him go as his loyalty is unmatched in the modern game of one year deals.
I absolutely endorse that, and I'm delighted that he's got a new challenge at Clyde. I don't think I ever remember a Sons striker with such technique - the overhead kicks were a thing of genius - and I've seen more than a few.
0 -
Right here goes, Murray for Dingwall?
Hmmm, I get the feeling that his stock may not be quite as high right now as it was in May. He's hit his first real turbulence and clubs will be watching to see the outcome - that's my take on it anyway.
As an aside, if Prunty and Murray are moving on and we've obviously signed the lad from Accies on loan, this will be the second season in a row that we're seeing upheaval very early into the league campaign (Murray and Nish joined immediately prior to the first Morton game last term). It kinda poses the question of why Hugh Murray and Prunty were re-signed at all, possibly also McDougall, McLaughlin and one keeper, and suggests that we're a bit all over the place in pre-season team-building
0 -
Who was Kenny Morrison? Don't remember that name
He was a young left-back who never really got beyond the fringe of the first-team. A solid enough player, and I'm pretty sure that's him in the picture. John Watters was at school with me, a local lad from Bellsmyre and son of a more weel-kent faither of the same name.
0 -
I'm about the same, I think.
Back Row: Kenny Jenkins, ?, Bruce Livingston, Colin McAdam, Willie Whigham, Billy Wilkinson, Lawrie Williams, Terry Mullen , Dennis Ruddy
Middle Row: Bobby McCallum, John Watters, Alan McKay, Andy McFadden, Gordon Menzies, Kenny Morrison (?) , John Cushley, ? , Johnny Paterson, Drummond Mentiply!!!, Jack Bolton
Front Row: Bobby Holmes, Peter Coleman, Ian Fearn, Charlie Gallacher, Ronnie Kidd, Kenny Wilson, Tom McAdam, Johnny Graham, Ian Miller, Davie Wilson, Alex Wright
Notable absentees - Jackie Stewart and Puma
0 -
In this theoretical scenario where season tickets seats are re-sold if a season ticket holder doesn't turn up to reserve a seat for a Cat A game, what would happen if a season ticket holder was away, on holiday for example, and so in the week leading up the game hadn't told the club whether he would or would not be attending on the Saturday, nor picked up a ticket, and so they re-sell his seat to another punter and then the season ticket holder turns up on the Saturday and finds someone sitting in his seat, both having paid for it?
This seems like it has far too many pitfalls for me, especially since it's only for relatively few games. I'd say that if a season ticket has been sold then that's that, no need to be re-selling seats and making season ticket holders pick up match tickets in advance, that's just daft and a hassle that no-one needs. It also defeats the point of even buying a season ticket.
Agree totally with your second para Pete, but you very much underestimate the Chairman's determination to chisel a penny out of every situation.
There is however no doubt that police pawprints are over some of this, they apparently insisted on segregation of supporters in hospitality and the closing of the Castle Road is also their insistence. To be fair, for the Rangers games they probably need to do that to stop maniacs without tickets crawing all over the place.
0 -
I agree that if folk are having to go out their way to claim the ticket then it's not on but I'd think surely they'll see sense and let you collect on the day of the match.
Unless it's before midday that probably won't happen Moonster. My understanding is that the Castle Road will be blocked off by police at Castlegreen St and you must be in possession of a match ticket to be allowed to proceed to the BBS.
It was always looking to be a circus this season and so far it's exceeding expectations.
0 -
I actually don't have a huge problem with this, provided we have plenty of time to pick up our tickets, AND the opening hours are sufficient to make it relatively easy for working people to collect them.
You could even collect your Cat A ticket at the previous home game.
This season is an opportunity to bring some much needed income into our coffers, and we've all complained about the club not aggressively pursuing options to extend our capacity. It would be crazy to have season ticket seats lying empty for Cat A games. Get unused ones "resold" and give Ian Murray the budget he needs to compete.
This bit interests me; if for whatever reason a season ticket holder does not uplift their match ticket how does the club prevent the home end becoming populated with say 100 Rangers, Hearts or Hibs fans ? Even proof of local residence at point of purchase is irrelevant if tickets are then simply passed on to mates, etc.,
I imagine the police will be totally comfortable with this. And I take it that empty seats in the Directors Box will also be up for sale, should the Brabco contingent fail to appear.
0 -
Glad Joe played well, the possibility of seeing him play was the only reason I thought about going to the game last night but glad I gave it a miss.
EDIT - Anyone heard when the away kit will be out?
It was utter dross Moonster, you made the correct decision. I'm really beginning to loathe the period up to mid-August; the sooner the serious, ie league, stuff starts the better.
0 -
The OS seems to have lost it's historical bearings today, we played Carlisle Utd in a pre-season friendly in (I'm sure) 1971-72 at Boghead so they have been in Dumbarton before tonight. I think it finished 2-1 for Sons, and this game was the precursor to King Kenny Wilson moving to Brunton Park in September of that year to replace, unbelievably, one Stanley Bowles.
0 -
He's been with us for years and has signed first team contracts for 3 seasons now, if he's not good enough then let him go. Or are we just keeping him because we can be arsed finding another youth keeper? I would just rather see us utilising our own youth system, especially when we already have two players signed up for a position that only really requires two players with an emergency back up (the youth player). We boast about being the best part-time side in the country but Cowden have had far more success in the youth development of players on what I imagine are less resources than we have. The youth side has to be there to compliment the first team when needed and if we're keeping players on just to field a youth side then I don't think we're doing it right.
Full-time teams in this division won't have three full first team keepers, of course it's excessive for a part time side to have 4 signed up.
Totally agree, and for what it's worth I don't think the lad is good enough. I like a 'keeper to 'look' like a 'keeper and Josh doesn't do that. As regards the youth aspect, I'm getting the impression that Ian Murray doesn't feel obliged to show undue interest and tick boxes against a policy which was initiated long before his arrival; his philosophy seems to be one of fielding teams with experienced guys who've been over the course. If that maintains our current league status then it's hard to argue against.
0
As for comments and opinions I get the feeling that the situation is now a bit clearer for everyone in the fan base, perversely due to the fact that so many answers were either vague or not forthcoming. 
Sons' sorrow
in Scottish League 2 General Chatter
Posted · Edited by O'Kelly Isley III
Planning consent for housing development on the present site is the least of that aspect for me Wilf, it's what numbers come out of it. The projection shown last night was for 180 dwellings and the Planning Consultant was honest enough to admit that such a figure would likely need reduce due to WDC (rightly) wishing a cordon around the Rock. So, to use the Chairman's arithmetic you may only get 150/160 bangs for your bucks as opposed to 180, which I would imagine would depress the purchase price of the land. As I said last night that matters a good deal, espcially with Brabco having no advertised funding to supplement the land sale.
I also queried the need/market for such housing given the considerable amount of new builds which have sprung up in the town over the last decade. I received a bullish response but I remain sceptical, especially that given by the time foundations would be being laid the interest rate will almost certainly have risen from the present very low level. Are there 160 families or individuals looking to move down there ? No-one knows, but Turnberry took a long time to fill all the current properties and significantly (to me anyway) they have effectively mothballed the old Blackburn site until whenever. Just how attractive to any developer/builder that 10-acre site will be in hard cash will go some way to determining if Phase One commences at the Dalmoakdome.